Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-03-18
EASY POLITICAL ECONOMY.

EASY POLITICAL ECONOMY.
Suppose the workmen who strike for
higher wages were all to receive the
price they ask-suppose they were all 10
receive an advance CT 100 per cent, for
instance, 81 d day men getting 50, 81 a
day men getting 81, IS per day men get
ting Sc, ETC., would they be any better of
than they are to-day? Let US see. AS
Stunning that as a rule employers get but q
fair and reasonable return for their iu-
veStments and their own labor,
which, considering the large number
of failures in business, and that
while 20 per cent of the employ
ers make unreasonable profits in a
given industry, 25 per cent. may fail alto
gether and the other so per cent. only get
q Just proportion Of the profits due them
which is but fair conclusion, if q 80 per
cent. raise in wages were granted it would
be necessary for employers to increase
their incomes to an amount equivalent
to their increase in expenses. What
wouldabe the result of this? Why, all
the products of Iabor-everything the
workman eats, and drinks, and
wears, the house he lives in, the books
and newspapers hereads, the amusements
he affords-if he is lucky enough to
be able to patronize any-would all be
enough higher in price to give the manu-
faCturer, or employer of any kind, the
same profit that he makes now. Then it
can readily be seen that the workman
would be no better off than he is at pres
ent. eyes," says the workingman, "but
what we want is fair share of the wealth
we create; we don't want the earth, but
when we see a firm making 20 per cent
profit on its cspital every year, we
know we do not get what we are en-
titled to-" Very well; when you see q
firm you are working for making no profit
whatever, or perhaps losing money in the
course of the year, are you willing to have
your wages reduced, perhaps work for
nothing, and thus bear an equal share of
the burdens? "Oh, no." is the reply, off
an employer is not sharp and active and
economical in business, we are not to
blame for t." But if a coal-heaver can
only earn SI.25 per day, while a skilled
mechanic can secure IS, is the employer
to blame for that? "Oh, WE'LL" says the
workingman, "of course we do not ex-
pect nor want the wages of all kinds of
lEbor raised; there are some working
men who earn good wages enouah at
present, and it is only those who do not
get fair wages that we would have re-
ceive more" Very well; what is fair
wages? Enough for a man to live on and
support his family? Not necessarily;
some men are not sharp and economical,
and it costs them much more than It
does others to support their families, but
their employers are not to blame for that,
while some men have no families
TO support and can live for much
less than others. Neither is fair
wages such sum as labor can
secure by combining ana monopolizing
the market-getting a corner in labor, so
TO speak. Fair wages IS just what labor
will bring with competition in the open
market, the rate being governed by the
supply and the demand. If an employer
pays q man So per day when there are
several idle men who need the work and
would be glad to 60 it for $3.50 per day,
then he is paying just so cents per Gay
more than fair price. This may seem
cold and hesrtless, but it is logic just the
same, and the sooner 1t is realized the
better.